Briefly
summarized, Richardson's proposed first amended complaint
alleges as follows: On November 7, 1994, Nina Glover's
nude body was discovered in a dumpster in Chicago, wrapped in
a blood-stained bedsheet. An autopsy revealed that she had
been killed by strangulation. Cassidy and other members of
the CPD were assigned to investigate the crime. When Cassidy
arrived at the crime scene, he obtained identifications from
four witnesses, including most relevant here, Johnny Douglas
(“Douglas”). Douglas was a convicted felon with a
long and violent criminal history, including multiple charges
for rape and assault. Douglas had no explanation for being
near the crime scene when Glover's body was found.
Douglas was an obvious prime suspect in the murder, but
Cassidy and the other Officer Defendants failed to check
Douglas' background or investigate him further. Douglas
went on to commit additional violent crimes against other
women, including rape and murder by strangulation.

Four
months after Glover was murdered, the Officer Defendants
approached a learning-disabled neighborhood teenager, Jerry
Fincher (“Fincher”) about the crime. According to
the proposed amended complaint, through use of coercive
interrogation, physical violence, and prolonged detention,
the Officer Defendants obtained Fincher's false
confession to the Glover murder. Fincher also falsely
implicated four other neighborhood teenagers in the murder:
Richardson, Thames, Saunders, and Terrill Swift
(“Swift”). None of these teenagers were involved
in the murder or knew the true perpetrator-who was later
discovered through DNA to be Douglas. These four teenagers
were chosen by Defendants to be framed for the Glover rape
and murder, because of Defendants' belief that they were
gang members or somehow affiliated with gangs.

After
obtaining Fincher's false confession, the Officer
Defendants and ASAs coerced the four boys whom Fincher had
named to confess to taking part in Glover's rape and
murder. First, through coercion and threats, the Officer
Defendants and ASA Johnson obtained a false, recorded
confession from Thames, which implicated Richardson,
Saunders, Swift, and Fincher. The Officer Defendants then
picked up, interrogated, and threatened Swift, and made false
promises of leniency if he confessed. Swift eventually
falsely implicated himself, Richardson, Fincher, Thames, and
Saunders in an oral statement and in a court-reported
statement.

The
Officer Defendants then arrested Richardson, told him they
had caught him in front of the Glover crime scheme, and
threatened to kill him. They took him to the police station,
handcuffed him to the wall of an interrogation room,
interrogated him without a parent or guardian, told him they
had evidence linking him to the Glover rape and murder,
pressured him to implicate himself in the crime, and made
false promises of leniency. “Defendant ASA Johnson was
initially involved in securing the false and fabricated
statements from [Richardson], before passing the task of
attempting secure a statement from [Richardson] to
Valentini.” [238-1] at 16. After hours of pressure,
Richardson eventually gave in and agreed to repeat the false
account of the Glover rape and murder that the Officer
Defendants had provided to him. In an oral statement,
Richardson falsely implicated himself, Thames, Saunders,
Swift, and Fincher. However, despite further pressure and
false promises of leniency from the Officer Defendants,
Richardson refused to sign a written statement documenting
him confession, because he knew it was untrue. Finally, the
Officer Defendants used threats of physical harm and coercion
to obtain a false written confession from Saunders, in which
he also implicated Richardson, Thames, Swift, and Fincher.

Each of
the teenagers was charged with first degree murder and
aggravated sexual assault. After charges were filed, the
Officer Defendants and ASAs continued to coordinate efforts
to implicate the five teenagers and to fabricate additional
evidence, including fabricating reports describing how
Richardson's confession was obtained, strategizing how to
conceal their misconduct in interrogating the boys, and
sharing a document detailing what the Officer Defendants and
the ASAs should say when questioned about the circumstances
of the Glover investigation. At a suppression hearing in the
criminal case, Johnson “falsely claimed that
[Richardson] had confessed to him.” [238-1] at 16.
Richardson was convicted at a bench trial, without any
physical evidence, solely based on his oral confession. He
was sentenced to 40 years in prison. Swift, Saunders, and
Thames were also convicted following bench trials and each
sentenced to between 30 and 40 years in prison. Fincher's
confession was deemed to be illegally obtained following a
suppression hearing, and all charges against him were
dropped.

Following
conviction, Richardson and the other Plaintiffs continued to
maintain their innocence and seek exoneration. On November
16, 2011, the Circuit Court of Cook County granted Richardson
and his co-defendants' joint petition to vacate their
convictions. On September 14, 2012, the State of Illinois
granted Richardson a certificate of innocence.

2.
Procedural History

Richardson
filed his original complaint against the Officer Defendants
and the City on November 1, 2012. See [1]. Richardson alleged
Section 1983 claims against the Officer Defendants for
violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Due
Process Clause, failure to intervene, conspiracy, and
supervisory liability. He also alleged state-law claims
against the Officer Defendants for malicious prosecution,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil
conspiracy. In addition, he alleged a Section 1983
Monell policy claim and state-law claims for
respondeat superior and indemnification against the City.

Richardson
did not name ASAs Valentini and Johnson as Defendants in his
original complaint. In contrast, Saunders named both Johnson
and Valentini as defendants in his original complaint, which
he filed on November 15, 2012. See Saunders, Case
No. 12-cv-9158, Docket Entry [1]).[2] Thames also named Johnson
(but not Valentini) as a defendant in his first amended
complaint, which he filed on November 20, 2012. See
Thames, Case No. 12-cv-9170, Docket Entry [5].

The
parties have engaged in extensive discovery since the
governing complaints were filed. Fact discovery formally
closed on April 22, 2015, but there are still motions pending
before Magistrate Judge Finnegan and this Court concerning
discovery, and additional discovery yet to be completed.
Summary judgment has not yet been briefed.

On May
9, 2016, Richardson received discovery documents from the
FBI, including most significantly a report recording an
interview between Johnson, FBI Special Agent Moore
(“Moore”), and two DOJ attorneys (the
“Moore Report”). The interview described in the
Moore Report took place months before Richardson filed his
lawsuit. Johnson did not mention the interview in written or
oral discovery in this litigation, and Richardson was unaware
of the Moore Report until he received it from the FBI earlier
this year. In his interview with Moore, Johnson allegedly
made damning admissions about the investigation of the Glover
rape and homicide and the manner in which the Officer
Defendants worked alongside ASAs Johnson and Valentini to
procure the confessions that were ultimately the basis for
Plaintiffs' wrongful convictions. Johnson's
admissions allegedly provided evidence that the ASAs worked
alongside the Officer Defendants, during the interrogations
and thereafter (for instance, during a suppression hearing),
to fabricate and coerce Plaintiffs' confession and ensure
that they would hold up in court. Johnson allegedly admitted
that Valentini promised Richardson leniency in exchange for a
confession, that Johnson falsely claimed not to remember
things that troubled him about the Officer Defendants'
timelines, and that Valentini agreed to conform his testimony
to that of the Officer Defendants.

About
two months after receiving the Moore Report, Richardson moved
for leave to file an amended complaint to add Johnson and
Valentini as defendants to the Section 1983 and state-law
claims that he had previously brought against only the
Officer Defendants. Moore, Valentini, and the City oppose
Richardson's motion on the basis that amendment would be
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.